US currency says "In God We Trust". Now, if that means you don't believe in God, it simply translated to, "Trust No One". Perhaps an even better motto when dealing with large piles of cash:)
The "It's for geeks" myth
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 2
I think it's time to finally put this myth to rest. The myth goes something like:
Linux is too hard for the average person to use and therefor it hasn't cut into Microsoft's marketshare.
If that logic were indeed the reason why Linux wasn't cutting into Microsoft's share, it would seem quite reasonable that apple should have long ago started cutting a big hole in Microsoft market share. Guess what! They haven't, and it's not because of the fundamental qualities of their operating system.
There are a lot of factors that keeps competing market share to a minimum. Since 90+% of the market runs windows it is not worth the effort involved for most developers to develop ports for Linux (except in the server market where Linux owns enough market share to make it valuable to put their resources there).
Furthermore, the market share figures are somewhat obscured by the nature of Linux. I buy a computer and it comes with Windows pre-installed, so chalk one more computer up to the Windows camp. Then I get it home, I download a Linux ISO, and install that instead. So how does that figure in? What if I go buy a copy of some knock off RedHat clone for $2 at a hamfest and install it? Is that counted into Linux market share?
Let's give them some credit, they do know, for example, how to line their pockets. They also have a tremendous knack for constructing arcane bureaucracies. They aren't completely incompetent:)
While I think that technology is really the only thing that's going to realistically provide the media industry the defense they've been searching for, I'm wondering what exactly this law will permit. For example, I produce copyrighted works on a daily basis on my website, at my office, etc. So do I then, suddenly, have the right to launch attacks on P2P networks? Furthermore, what kinds of attacks will be legitmized. Would be rather bizarre to have a nasty and dangerous worm become legal simply because it was launched against a P2P network.
Seems like another case of a congress critter trying to bring the law into an area he truely does not understand..
I should have clarified that I was intending for this to be from the perspective of the record labels, not the artists (since the record labels are the ones paying out these $250L-$1M fees).
I, as a record label set up a webcasting site. I broadcast a number of channels depending on the variety of music I wish to promite. All of the channels would exclusively feature artists on my label, thus costing me zero to broadcast in royalties.
There would certainly be a cost to set up and maintain this service, but if you distribute that cost over the cost of promoting all of those artists, it does provide a substantial cost savings. Perhaps not quite zero but substantially cheaper than the fees that clear channel is wanting.
The problem, of course, for the labels is that this approach is untested and thus risky. The record labels abhore risk.
Internet broadcasters are going to get screwed I'm sure (and I'm one of them so I'm, to say the least, a bit pissed). But record labels can do their own promotion on the Internet if they'd just let go of the past and embrace the new ways of doing business.
I have yet to fathom why all of the computer manufcaturers seem insistent that tablet PC's are the way of the future. A company I worked for had a bunch of table PC's that were supposed to be sold as part of wireless Internet services, and they were horrible? I mean technologically, they were sort of impressive, but the actual usability of the beasts was just awful compared to a laptop. Furthermore, the price of one of these beasts was roughly double the price of a midrange laptop.
It's sort of funny how blind they are to the reality of this market. Think about this for just a moment. Look at the market for hand held PDA devices. A couple years ago did any of them have keyboards? Nope. Now, suddenly all of them are getting keyboards because, simply, it's much easier to enter information on a keyboard. They all seem to be convinced that entering data using handwriting is so natural and easy but I'm sure I'm not the only one who. after years of incessant typing, can barely write in cursive anymore without serious concentration.
The only real advantage that there is to the table design is that you can carry it around and use it without needing to sit down. That's somewhat useful in some places and it is only a necessary feature in very limited areas (medical use is about the only thing I can think of off the top of my head). If somebody could get a hybrid design together for only slightly more than a full blow laptop, then maybe it could work.
Okay, it's rather creepy to go see Minority Report and then within 24 hours see a posting about this sort of stuff. So how long before they call you up to tell you when you're flight is scheduled before you even know you want to go somewhere?
If the ruling is posted on-line and the defendant proceeds to link to the ruling, would that be against the ruling? I'm assuming here that the ruling specifies the articles that cannot be linked to. If it specifies them as a URL, then it would be illegal for them to link to the ruling.
I'd be happy if IBM officially supported linux on laptops, but I've bought laptops before from other vendors that weren't officially supported linux and have had little trouble. It just takes some up front research to figure out what's going to work and what won't.
Now, IBM may be cutting official support, but it's reasonable to believe that IBM will continue to support community efforts. That is, they'll probably be helpful in making the information about their laptops available to the kernel hackers out there so that they can be made compatible. This way, IBM spends very little, and you can still get an IBM laptop running Linux, it just means there won't be some guy at IBM you can call and ask questions.
No big deal, I never used to do that even when I ran Windows;)
Well the bulk of NPR's funding still comes from listeners, so we do have some influence over their policies if we want it. Be sure to mention your long time membership (if you are a member, don't lie) and how this makes you question your membership.
Excellent, combine phone implants with the ability to rapidly triangulate any cell phone, and you've got embedded tracking of the citizenry. Weeeee, sign me up! I'm not with Al Qaeda so I shouldn't have any reason to hide, right?
One of the big problems that comes up with developing is that the people writing the code have two big strikes against them for testing their own code:
1) They know how it is supposed to be used 2) They want it to work
The side effect of this is that frequently the code will give every impression of working perfectly until somebody who isn't familiar with the code tries to play with it. Then suddenly they are doing unexpected things, entering blank spaces, wierd characters, and other things that can be expected to happen in the real world.
So, in any system you are developing it is very useful to have the developers try to break eachother's code. People don't want to break their own code, so generally they don't.
From the article: After that the users are encouraged to sign up to access the thousands of applications available in the warehouse for $99
Yup, all the stability of Linux with all the sense you are getting screwed we've come to appreciate from Windows. Excuse me, but paying $99 to have access to free software is just a little ridiculous. Basically seems like they are taking advantage of people who don't know any better. Nice business model, eh?
...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH A HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHA HAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA HAAAaaaaa...
Wow, that's the best one I've heard in a LONG time!
I mean seriously, why would Microsoft, who has demonstrated, time and time again, a desire to control every single API for the windows platform, put a competitors API on their system? There answer is simple: the wouldn't. The only reason they would is if there were overwhelming cries from the people using the OS, and most of the people just shrugged their shoulders and downloaded it.
There's one VERY important thing that nullifies the advantage the ipod gets. Apple doesn't have windows software for it. So, let's see here, Windows controls roughly 90% of the market. Apple controls maybe 3%. Now, let's say that all the apple customers buy an Ipod. Toshiba would only have to sell a player to 1 in every 30 PC owners to be matching apple's market share.
Apple's plan to release Ipod with only apple software initially may have made sense but it's going to kill them in the long run if they don't get off their high horse.
Also, add to this that the Toshiba has some features that make it, in my mind, superior to the ipod. The fact that it's hard drive is removable is a definite bonus. Not only can I speed up transfers by hooking it up to my laptop's pcmcia slot, I can also upgrade the thing later if I need more space.
We'll see when these devices finally come out, but it seems to me that overall these are similar enough to cut into apple's sales in the long term. If apple decides to stick to selling to a base of apple customers, then they will never sell as many Ipods as Toshibas take on it.
Many of the sites I visit use some sort of scripting that I would like to remain working. Specific things that scripting is used for is all that should need to be disabled. That's a little too "all or nothing" for my taste (and I suspect for others as well).
The big problem I've found when I am pressed into using IE for whatever reason is the ridiculous amount of ad-related annoyances I have to deal with. Pop-over ads, pop-under ads, animated things flying all over my screen, etc. And this isn't even at the pr0n sites!
I think Mozilla's chance to grab some market share is by pushing for the fact that it gives you control over these annoyances. Turn off all of those unrequested popups with a couple of mouse clicks, or you can go back to using IE and have to close a bazillion windows every time you are done surfing.
So, I think the browser war isn't quite over, it's just going to be fought on a different front.
Well, I think it can be safely reasoned that ISS cannot be considered a reputable security organization. Do you really want to give these guys any money when:
1) They are unable to fully understand the nature of a discovered flaw
2) They are unable to release a patch that solves the problem (demonstrating a lack of a good QA process)
3) They have demonstrated an inability to work effectively with industry leading software developers
I don't know about you, but I'd be hard pressed to trust my business or even my home data to the security of an organization that is so apparently incompetent. They have a lot of 'splaining to do.
The mozilla story is ancient and well covered here on slashdot. I agree that the article these comments are attached to is also quite old, but this CNN article is really nothing terribly insightful. It's saying the same thing we've heard a thousand times. IE runs the world. Mozilla took a long time. AOL might be able to push mozilla by putting it in their client. I mean, was there one element of new information in there.
at least this re-hashed article is an interesting read. I've read it twice before and I still enjoyed skimming over it again because it's fascinating to see how a kid could build such a thing. It's even more fascinating given the recent context of Al Qaeda, dirty bombs, etc. Had this kid been malevolent enough to take his radioactive toys and wrap it around a pipe bomb, we would have had a nasty mess. Good to refresh our memories on how frighteningly easy it is to do this sort of thing.
I worked in consulting for 4 years and we avoided the small business customers for a very important reason. The problem with a small company is that they go through the same hesitation and concern over spending thousands of dollars that a big company would do over millions of dollars. You end up having to work just as hard for a substantially smaller return.
Now, that's as a consultant. Consulting implies a certain amount of custom work, which is what kills you in the smaller businesses. If you could develop some product that's useful to a lot of small businesses, then you might have some potential to make money at it. Think of something like quick books, a product that lots of small companies use, that's relatively cheap but is sold in large enough quantities to be profitable.
So, what you need to do is identify a need in the market. The trick is not inventing the next big thing, it is simply finding an unaddressed need. You've probably stumbled accross a few of these in your past work; meeting people who are doing things a complex way because they have no idea there's a better way. Find those things and provide solutions to them.
The thing that's different though in developing a product is that you, as the "leisured" programmer are taking on the risk of it. If you are billing somebody by the hour, if something goes wrong, you can still eat. If you make some product and nobody buys it, you are screwed. This means that, in addition to being able to develope software, you need to have the talent or be able to hire the talent necessary to sell your product to people.
It is the secret Microsoft revenge for the Koreans taking first place in their grouping in the World Cup. How dare they make the US look like a second rate soccer team, LAUNCH THE VIRUS!
Slashdot Mirror
US currency says "In God We Trust". Now, if that means you don't believe in God, it simply translated to, "Trust No One". Perhaps an even better motto when dealing with large piles of cash :)
I think it's time to finally put this myth to rest. The myth goes something like:
Linux is too hard for the average person to use and therefor it hasn't cut into Microsoft's marketshare.
If that logic were indeed the reason why Linux wasn't cutting into Microsoft's share, it would seem quite reasonable that apple should have long ago started cutting a big hole in Microsoft market share. Guess what! They haven't, and it's not because of the fundamental qualities of their operating system.
There are a lot of factors that keeps competing market share to a minimum. Since 90+% of the market runs windows it is not worth the effort involved for most developers to develop ports for Linux (except in the server market where Linux owns enough market share to make it valuable to put their resources there).
Furthermore, the market share figures are somewhat obscured by the nature of Linux. I buy a computer and it comes with Windows pre-installed, so chalk one more computer up to the Windows camp. Then I get it home, I download a Linux ISO, and install that instead. So how does that figure in? What if I go buy a copy of some knock off RedHat clone for $2 at a hamfest and install it? Is that counted into Linux market share?
Let's give them some credit, they do know, for example, how to line their pockets. They also have a tremendous knack for constructing arcane bureaucracies. They aren't completely incompetent :)
That business plan is soooooo 1999 :)
While I think that technology is really the only thing that's going to realistically provide the media industry the defense they've been searching for, I'm wondering what exactly this law will permit. For example, I produce copyrighted works on a daily basis on my website, at my office, etc. So do I then, suddenly, have the right to launch attacks on P2P networks? Furthermore, what kinds of attacks will be legitmized. Would be rather bizarre to have a nasty and dangerous worm become legal simply because it was launched against a P2P network.
Seems like another case of a congress critter trying to bring the law into an area he truely does not understand..
I should have clarified that I was intending for this to be from the perspective of the record labels, not the artists (since the record labels are the ones paying out these $250L-$1M fees).
I, as a record label set up a webcasting site. I broadcast a number of channels depending on the variety of music I wish to promite. All of the channels would exclusively feature artists on my label, thus costing me zero to broadcast in royalties.
There would certainly be a cost to set up and maintain this service, but if you distribute that cost over the cost of promoting all of those artists, it does provide a substantial cost savings. Perhaps not quite zero but substantially cheaper than the fees that clear channel is wanting.
The problem, of course, for the labels is that this approach is untested and thus risky. The record labels abhore risk.
Cost to a RECORD LABEL: near zero
Internet broadcasters are going to get screwed I'm sure (and I'm one of them so I'm, to say the least, a bit pissed). But record labels can do their own promotion on the Internet if they'd just let go of the past and embrace the new ways of doing business.
Cost to promote on a radio stations: $250K - $1M
Cost to promote on internet: approximately $0
Bye bye radio!
I have yet to fathom why all of the computer manufcaturers seem insistent that tablet PC's are the way of the future. A company I worked for had a bunch of table PC's that were supposed to be sold as part of wireless Internet services, and they were horrible? I mean technologically, they were sort of impressive, but the actual usability of the beasts was just awful compared to a laptop. Furthermore, the price of one of these beasts was roughly double the price of a midrange laptop.
It's sort of funny how blind they are to the reality of this market. Think about this for just a moment. Look at the market for hand held PDA devices. A couple years ago did any of them have keyboards? Nope. Now, suddenly all of them are getting keyboards because, simply, it's much easier to enter information on a keyboard. They all seem to be convinced that entering data using handwriting is so natural and easy but I'm sure I'm not the only one who. after years of incessant typing, can barely write in cursive anymore without serious concentration.
The only real advantage that there is to the table design is that you can carry it around and use it without needing to sit down. That's somewhat useful in some places and it is only a necessary feature in very limited areas (medical use is about the only thing I can think of off the top of my head). If somebody could get a hybrid design together for only slightly more than a full blow laptop, then maybe it could work.
Okay, it's rather creepy to go see Minority Report and then within 24 hours see a posting about this sort of stuff. So how long before they call you up to tell you when you're flight is scheduled before you even know you want to go somewhere?
If the ruling is posted on-line and the defendant proceeds to link to the ruling, would that be against the ruling? I'm assuming here that the ruling specifies the articles that cannot be linked to. If it specifies them as a URL, then it would be illegal for them to link to the ruling.
Wow, the judge really screwed this one up...
I'd be happy if IBM officially supported linux on laptops, but I've bought laptops before from other vendors that weren't officially supported linux and have had little trouble. It just takes some up front research to figure out what's going to work and what won't.
;)
Now, IBM may be cutting official support, but it's reasonable to believe that IBM will continue to support community efforts. That is, they'll probably be helpful in making the information about their laptops available to the kernel hackers out there so that they can be made compatible. This way, IBM spends very little, and you can still get an IBM laptop running Linux, it just means there won't be some guy at IBM you can call and ask questions.
No big deal, I never used to do that even when I ran Windows
Well the bulk of NPR's funding still comes from listeners, so we do have some influence over their policies if we want it. Be sure to mention your long time membership (if you are a member, don't lie) and how this makes you question your membership.
You can always throw a phone away. If it's embedded in your tooth it's a bit more of a problem :)
Excellent, combine phone implants with the ability to rapidly triangulate any cell phone, and you've got embedded tracking of the citizenry. Weeeee, sign me up! I'm not with Al Qaeda so I shouldn't have any reason to hide, right?
One of the big problems that comes up with developing is that the people writing the code have two big strikes against them for testing their own code:
1) They know how it is supposed to be used
2) They want it to work
The side effect of this is that frequently the code will give every impression of working perfectly until somebody who isn't familiar with the code tries to play with it. Then suddenly they are doing unexpected things, entering blank spaces, wierd characters, and other things that can be expected to happen in the real world.
So, in any system you are developing it is very useful to have the developers try to break eachother's code. People don't want to break their own code, so generally they don't.
From the article:
After that the users are encouraged to sign up to access the thousands of applications available in the warehouse for $99
Yup, all the stability of Linux with all the sense you are getting screwed we've come to appreciate from Windows. Excuse me, but paying $99 to have access to free software is just a little ridiculous. Basically seems like they are taking advantage of people who don't know any better. Nice business model, eh?
...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AH AHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA HAAAaaaaa...
Wow, that's the best one I've heard in a LONG time!
I mean seriously, why would Microsoft, who has demonstrated, time and time again, a desire to control every single API for the windows platform, put a competitors API on their system? There answer is simple: the wouldn't. The only reason they would is if there were overwhelming cries from the people using the OS, and most of the people just shrugged their shoulders and downloaded it.
There's one VERY important thing that nullifies the advantage the ipod gets. Apple doesn't have windows software for it. So, let's see here, Windows controls roughly 90% of the market. Apple controls maybe 3%. Now, let's say that all the apple customers buy an Ipod. Toshiba would only have to sell a player to 1 in every 30 PC owners to be matching apple's market share.
Apple's plan to release Ipod with only apple software initially may have made sense but it's going to kill them in the long run if they don't get off their high horse.
Also, add to this that the Toshiba has some features that make it, in my mind, superior to the ipod. The fact that it's hard drive is removable is a definite bonus. Not only can I speed up transfers by hooking it up to my laptop's pcmcia slot, I can also upgrade the thing later if I need more space.
We'll see when these devices finally come out, but it seems to me that overall these are similar enough to cut into apple's sales in the long term. If apple decides to stick to selling to a base of apple customers, then they will never sell as many Ipods as Toshibas take on it.
Many of the sites I visit use some sort of scripting that I would like to remain working. Specific things that scripting is used for is all that should need to be disabled. That's a little too "all or nothing" for my taste (and I suspect for others as well).
The big problem I've found when I am pressed into using IE for whatever reason is the ridiculous amount of ad-related annoyances I have to deal with. Pop-over ads, pop-under ads, animated things flying all over my screen, etc. And this isn't even at the pr0n sites!
I think Mozilla's chance to grab some market share is by pushing for the fact that it gives you control over these annoyances. Turn off all of those unrequested popups with a couple of mouse clicks, or you can go back to using IE and have to close a bazillion windows every time you are done surfing.
So, I think the browser war isn't quite over, it's just going to be fought on a different front.
Well, I think it can be safely reasoned that ISS cannot be considered a reputable security organization. Do you really want to give these guys any money when:
1) They are unable to fully understand the nature of a discovered flaw
2) They are unable to release a patch that solves the problem (demonstrating a lack of a good QA process)
3) They have demonstrated an inability to work effectively with industry leading software developers
I don't know about you, but I'd be hard pressed to trust my business or even my home data to the security of an organization that is so apparently incompetent. They have a lot of 'splaining to do.
The mozilla story is ancient and well covered here on slashdot. I agree that the article these comments are attached to is also quite old, but this CNN article is really nothing terribly insightful. It's saying the same thing we've heard a thousand times. IE runs the world. Mozilla took a long time. AOL might be able to push mozilla by putting it in their client. I mean, was there one element of new information in there.
at least this re-hashed article is an interesting read. I've read it twice before and I still enjoyed skimming over it again because it's fascinating to see how a kid could build such a thing. It's even more fascinating given the recent context of Al Qaeda, dirty bombs, etc. Had this kid been malevolent enough to take his radioactive toys and wrap it around a pipe bomb, we would have had a nasty mess. Good to refresh our memories on how frighteningly easy it is to do this sort of thing.
I worked in consulting for 4 years and we avoided the small business customers for a very important reason. The problem with a small company is that they go through the same hesitation and concern over spending thousands of dollars that a big company would do over millions of dollars. You end up having to work just as hard for a substantially smaller return.
Now, that's as a consultant. Consulting implies a certain amount of custom work, which is what kills you in the smaller businesses. If you could develop some product that's useful to a lot of small businesses, then you might have some potential to make money at it. Think of something like quick books, a product that lots of small companies use, that's relatively cheap but is sold in large enough quantities to be profitable.
So, what you need to do is identify a need in the market. The trick is not inventing the next big thing, it is simply finding an unaddressed need. You've probably stumbled accross a few of these in your past work; meeting people who are doing things a complex way because they have no idea there's a better way. Find those things and provide solutions to them.
The thing that's different though in developing a product is that you, as the "leisured" programmer are taking on the risk of it. If you are billing somebody by the hour, if something goes wrong, you can still eat. If you make some product and nobody buys it, you are screwed. This means that, in addition to being able to develope software, you need to have the talent or be able to hire the talent necessary to sell your product to people.
It is the secret Microsoft revenge for the Koreans taking first place in their grouping in the World Cup. How dare they make the US look like a second rate soccer team, LAUNCH THE VIRUS!